rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Jan 10 22:11:18 UTC 2008
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu):
> I thought it was relevant because Donovan's claim is that because open
> source provides free solutions that you can't make money (except from
> nice people) on it where you disagree saying that you can because Red
> Hat does.
You have not bothered to correctly read what I said -- _nor_ what Donovan
In the first place, Donovan's claim concerned specifically copylefted
software, not open source as a whole. He asserted: "Practically
speaking [copyleft licensing] means you cannot sell your work (or at
least, can't sell it more than once)."
I said that not only does Red Hat, Inc. sell copylefted codebases
continually, but also that, e.g., the gcc binary RPM from RHEL5 Update 1
Server Edition is not in practice available for free (or even more cheaply)
except from that company -- that others have the _right_ to sell or give
away that file, but in practice do not.
(You can confirm this for yourself, if you doubt what I say. I await
your timely refutation, and continue to not see it posted.)
> My position was it's somewhere in the middle.
Yes, after failing to understand Donovan's assertion, and then failing
to understand my counterexample, you then made some digression about Sun
And I rather suspect everyone here already knows a whole lot more about
the role of CentOS and other such distributions towards the enterprise
OS market than you're likely to tell us.
More information about the License-discuss